Educational exemption denied where surplus and private benefits showed the institution was run for commercial purposes.

Exemption for an educational institution was unavailable where the evidence showed it was not run solely for education and not without profit. The Tribunal noted a consistent pattern of substantial surplus, fees charged beyond what was needed for educational expenditure, and diversion of institutional funds for the benefit of the Secretary and his family, including rent, repairs, personal expenses and other advantages. On those facts, the institution's affairs were found to reflect commercial use rather than an exclusively educational object, so the exemption claim failed and the Revenue succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1989-90 as an institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit.

Analysis: The exemption under section 10(22) applies only where the institution is established and run exclusively for education, any surplus is merely incidental, and the surplus is not diverted for the benefit of persons having control or interest in the institution. On the facts, the Tribunal found a consistent pattern of substantial surplus, charging of fees far beyond the level needed for educational expenditure, and use of the institution's funds for the benefit of the Secretary and his family, including rent, repairs, personal expenses, and other advantages. It also found that the institution's affairs were controlled in a manner showing commercial use rather than a purely educational object.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 10(22); the claim failed and the Revenue succeeded on the substantive issue.

Ratio Decidendi: An educational exemption is unavailable where the institution is run with regular profit-making surplus and the benefits of that surplus are enjoyed by persons in control of the institution.

---